ekky43

I'm pretty sure almost no nerds use chatgpt, as chatgpt kinda takes the nerdiness out of the nerd.

Script kiddy might fit better, looking at stackoverflow from the past half year.

w/ appears to have origin in the food industry some 70 years ago (according to this question).

To me it makes sense, as I first encountered it in video games where abbreviations, acronyms, and text-saving-slang are commonplace. Furthermore, while abbreviations usually have multiple letters (in written text, not physical or mathematical equations), single letter abbreviations can quickly become confusing, so I belive that this is the reason for putting a slash behind it, or possibly a bar above it.

RANT: While I know that language changes all the time, I find it very unfortunate that this little fellow o/ and possibly his slightly more formal friend o7 have become synonymous with "nazi salute". First off, it's the wrong arm! And second off, what do you have against "man waving" and "man saluting"?

It must be very confusing for someone who uses this newer definition of o/ to visit the Elite:Dangerous forums.

EDIT: I'm very happy that I apparently am the only one who has met people who don't know the real meaning of o/ and o7. I feared that this was a widespread problem, but luckily it appears that I simply am a worrywart.

~~Are you this dense and uninformed on purpose, or are you just trolling us?~~ I'll apologies for that remark, it does not contribute to the discussion, though your points are rather misinformed.

France has a lot of old plants who will be at their end of life after some 50 years of service.

The exact same thing you just said also counts for windmills. Contrary to popular belief, windmills do not last forever and will need to be rebuilt or deconstructed at the latest after some 30 years.

Does this mean that windmills do not work because they aren't perpetual machines? No! There's a myriad of problems with wind and solar, but them having a finite lifespan is very normal.

You do realise how much space windmills would need to produce as much power as a single nuclear plant, right? That is also the reason we try to build them in the water.

And when did I write anything about nuclear waste? I specifically pointed out that I was talking about deconstruction waste, where cooling towers turbines, and general facilities can be reused, and only the core shielding of the nuclear reactor has to be specially disposed of, versus the wings and foundation of windmills, which we don't really know what to do with right now, so we kinda just bury them wherever and hope it doesn't come back to bite us later.

Half of those aren't even relevant.

The actual construction takes about 4 years, but legal issues such as rules changing and politics, legal issues, and additional planning tend to push this up to 6-15 years in extreme cases. To draw a parallel: building a 1GW windmill farm, such as the Thorsminde off shore windmill farm is estimated to take 5 years of pure construction time, and politics and legal issues have so far added 4 years to this from the day it was announced, giving a total construction time of about 9 years without delays.

Cost wise, Thorsminde is projected to cost 2.1 billion USD, and that's without running costs, possible delays, or deconstruction costs at its 30 year end of life. The construction of a nuclear plant usually ( as in the projects that have been finished and we know the total construction costs of) costs anywhere from 6 to 9 billion USD. So yes, nuclear is more expensive, as you said.

Of course windmills don't just pop out of the ground, so heavy machinery will also be required, and the sound of the hammers building the foundation will likely drive away any sound sensitive life in a 100-200 km radius, such as whales. This can be partly mitigated by running the hammers at lower power, adding about 30-50% (might be more, foundations take a long time to build) additional construction time and driving up the price.

The windmills will also change the life of the area dramatically throughout its life, VS nuclear, which requires mines that cause decent damage, but do not pollute in any significant way at the reactor site (unless you pump the waste water from the usually closed first loop directly out to the rivers and sea, or swear on running the power plant without cooling towers during droughts).

Also the resources needed to make a 1GW wind farm are immense, and contrary to nuclear, we can't currently reuse the waste from deconstruction, which there also is quite a lot more of. Furthermore, maintenance will be hell, as you have much more moving parts (not per windmill, but per farm, which has multiple windmills) as a nuclear plant.

... And cause a lot of pollution and ecological stress, unless you funnel a LARGE amount of money and time into it.

While a pan Atlantic railroad would be interesting, I think it would run into unique problems better solved with other technologies.

No, I meant planes or other flying vehicles that do not use fuel which is refined from oil.

Sounds good! Now just make sure to include a clause that planes below a certain (carbon emission) threshold are excluded, so it actually promotes innovation and change, and doesn't just make it more expensive.